Originally Posted by BonzoAPD
If they weren't why wouldn't Saddam let the UN Inspectors do their job? Also if they weren't there then why did the US find small amounts of them in the desert? And if they weren't there why at the begining of the war did Iraq fire missles back at us?
Just some food for thought
1. Because Saddam was a sneaky dude.
2. Finding
trace amounts of chemical weapons on some old missle shells hardly constitutes finding much of anything. They could have dated back to the late 80s before Saddam's possession of said weapons was banned.
3. They fired missiles back at us because they had some missiles to fire.
Circumstantial evidence doesn't make a case. Lots of circumstantial evidence piled on top of itself doesn't either (and don't think that by me extending out to this level that there was even "lots" of circumstantial evidence, because there isn't).
The end.
This country is so divided in its preference for one party or another right now that nobody is really willing to consider the other side's argument on ANYTHING. Logic is not something which applies. But that's why I gave up on talking about politics, and I'm going to go back to that now.